Traditionally, when designing a user interface for graphical applications, it is generally accepted that both a working area, and areas for functional “soft” controls are provided. The term “soft control” is used throughout the specification to denote controls which are displayed on a graphic display, rather than implemented in a hardware device.
FIG. 1 shows a graphic display 100, which comprises a working area 104, and a number of control areas which are set aside for functional controls, ie. 102, 106 and 108. An exemplary control 110 is shown in the upper functional control area 102, the particular control 110 being a “scale” adjustment control in a “slider” format.
It is evident from FIG. 1 that a trade-off is required between an amount of available area allocated to the work area 104, and areas 102, 106, and 108 which are allocated to functional controls. On the one hand, the work area 104 should be as large as possible, however, it is typically desirable to have rapid access to as many functional controls, in a convenient manner, as possible.
Typically, the aforementioned trade-off involves reducing a size of the area allocated to each functional control. This is achieved, however, at the expense of clarity, simplicity and user feedback, resulting in small, cryptic controls, which often do not intuitively indicate the impact of changing the settings. An inexperienced user will, consequently, not necessarily understand what the intended use of a control is. Furthermore, there is frequently little, if any feedback as to the potential results of changing a setting of a soft control, while the control is being adjusted. This results in a “change and wait” sequence for the user, which is inconvenient and frustrating.
Some relief is provided to the user in traditional graphical user interfaces by means of “tool tips”propr, which typically provide a brief textual description of a control, when the user positions a pointing device cursor over the control.